ABLawg

Let’s Talk About Access to Information in Alberta Part Two: Alberta’s Policy on Wildlife Rehabilitation

In April 2018, Alberta Environment and Parks revised its wildlife rehabilitation policy to allow for the rehabilitation of black bears less than one year old. This change allows for the rehabilitation of orphaned black bear cubs in Alberta, an activity that has been prohibited since 2010 when Alberta implemented a policy change that heavily limited wildlife rehabilitation. Under the new policy, orphaned or injured black bear cubs and several other species have typically been euthanized by wildlife officers. Injured or orphaned wildlife with the good fortune of being found in the national parks might be spared this fate because of federal policy which is more accommodating to the interests of wildlife. For example, orphan bear cubs found in a washroom in Banff were sent to be rehabilitated outside of the province. The Public Interest Law Clinic at the University of Calgary had been working with a person interested in challenging Alberta’s prohibitive wildlife rehabilitation policy, and after the policy change for orphaned black bear cubs in April of 2018, we filed a freedom of information request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, RSA 2000, c F-25 (FOIP Act) seeking to learn more about this policy shift. In December 2018 we received the disclosure materials, and this post explains what we learned as part of our ongoing series about using the access to information process in Alberta.

Claims that Bill C-69 Needs More Focus on Economic Factors Ignore the Reality of Government Decision-Making and the Bill’s Details

By Hugh Benevides

On January 17, 2019

In Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Hugh Benevides

PDF Version: Claims that Bill C-69 Needs More Focus on Economic Factors Ignore the Reality of Government Decision-Making and the Bill’s Details

Legislation Commented On: Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Much debate has occurred in recent months about Bill C-69, the federal government’s attempt to make good on election promises to strengthen and restore public trust in environmental decision-making. (Martin Olszynski addressed some of the problematic claims last September; other ABlawg posts have looked at various aspects of the Bill). As further set out below, the critics and opponents of Bill C-69, which was referred to a Senate committee in December following Second Reading, refuse to acknowledge that the proposed Impact Assessment Act will give Canadians the chance to have greater input into proposals affecting their communities, and to better trust decisions about projects like mines, dams—and yes, pipelines. It promises to do so by ensuring that people who care about a proposed development can participate meaningfully in its assessment, with a view to more lasting environmental, economic, social and health benefits.

Sentencing Lake Louise Ski Resort Under the Species at Risk Act and A Comment on the Federal Environmental Damages Fund

By Shaun Fluker

On January 15, 2019

In Environmental, Protection of Species

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Sentencing Lake Louise Ski Resort Under the Species at Risk Act and A Comment on the Federal Environmental Damages Fund

Case Commented On: R v The Lake Louise Ski Area Ltd, 2018 ABPC 280 (CanLII)

In December 2017, the Lake Louise Ski Resort pled guilty to unlawfully cutting down and damaging 148 trees without a permit during the summer of 2013 in the Ptarmigan Chutes area of the resort. Some of the trees cut were whitebark pines, a species listed as endangered under the federal Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 (SARA). Section 32 of SARA prohibits any conduct that harms the endangered whitebark pines and section 97 makes it an offence to contravene this prohibition. Most of the trees cut at the resort were not from an endangered species, but were nonetheless cut down without authorization from Parks Canada, and thus Lake Louise also contravened section 10 of the National Parks General Regulations, SOR/78-213, which is an offence under section 24(2) of the Canada National Parks Act, SC 2000, c 32 (Parks Act). On November 30, 2018 Judge Heather Lamoureux of the Provincial Court of Alberta sentenced Lake Louise to a $1.6 million penalty under SARA for cutting the whitebark pines, and a $500,000 penalty under the Parks Act for unlawful cutting of the other trees, for a total penalty of $2.1 million which will be directed into the federal Environmental Damages Fund. Lake Louise has since filed an appeal with the Court of Queen’s Bench seeking to have this total penalty reduced to $200,000.

Negotiated Settlements and Just and Reasonable Rates

By Nigel Bankes

On January 9, 2019

In Energy, Oil & Gas

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Negotiated Settlements and Just and Reasonable Rates

Decision Commented On: National Energy Board, TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TransCanada) Application for Approval of 2018 to 2020 Mainline Tolls RH-001-2018, Reasons for Decision, December 13, 2018

This is the most recent decision in a string of decisions from the National Energy Board (NEB) over the last five years dealing with TransCanada PipeLines (TCPL) as TCPL and the NEB seek to grapple with the dramatic changes that have occurred in North American natural gas markets over this period, and more specifically how these changes pose the risk of stranded assets and as such threaten to affect the viability of one of the NEB’s most important regulated pipelines: TCPL and TCPL’s mainline (or at least elements of that mainline). Perhaps the most dramatic of these changes is the increased availability of shale gas supplies, and specifically shale gas supplies from basins much closer to TCPL’s traditional markets than the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), TCPL’s main source of gas.

What is interesting about these decisions, including this most recent decision, is the interplay or tension between the NEB’s statutory authority to establish just and reasonable rates and the market-based approaches as reflected in negotiated settlements. While the NEB and other regulators seek to encourage negotiated settlements between the regulated entity and its customers, it is plain from this decision that the regulator retains a power of review. While a regulator may be reluctant to exercise that power given that settlements typically involve some give and take, this decision demonstrates that the regulator will not always defer to the paradigm of settlement and contract if it perceives that the results of the settlement depart significantly from fundamental rate-making principles. While this decision happens to deal with TCPL and the NEB, the same interplay is apparent in any jurisdiction that allows for the possibility that a regulated utility may reach a negotiated settlement with some or all customers rather than going through an adversarial rate hearing.

Bill C-88 Will Finally Eliminate the MVRMA “Superboard” … But Where’s the Rest?

By David V Wright

On January 8, 2019

In Aboriginal, Environmental

By: David V. Wright

PDF Version: Bill C-88 Will Finally Eliminate the MVRMA “Superboard” … But Where’s the Rest?

Bill Commented On: Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

The Trudeau Government recently tabled Bill C-88, An Act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This post focuses on the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, SC 1998, c 25 (MVRMA). The primary purpose of this portion of the Bill is to reverse several controversial amendments to the MVRMA. The Harper Government enacted these changes in 2014 as part of a broader suite of reforms to implement devolution in the Northwest Territories (NWT). These amendments sought to reform regulatory review bodies and co-management boards in the NWT by creating a “superboard”; however, the litigation discussed below stymied those plans. This post provides context around Bill C-88, summarizes the superboard litigation, and comments on an unfulfilled government commitment to conduct a broader review of northern assessment regimes.